From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 14:56:08 EST
At 7:26 PM +0100 11/24/04, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: >I agree too, Paul. In fact, as some of my posts testify, I go even >further, I think taht some point of this tradition must be included >critically in a renewed Marxism. My point was about what happened >after the mid 70s. I think Neoclassical mounted an efffective >reaction. I guess that the same Robinson was not very happy with a >criticism of Neoclassicism which stopped at the critique of >neoclassical capital theory, and insisted that we should go towards >an approach which included time and history in an essential way. Does >this mean that we have to accept the idea that value is just >metaphysics? At the same time, I accept as substantially true her >criticism of the falling rate of profits. But then why try to pass off this tradition (or Roemer's) as a renewed Marxism? This I don't understand. Perhaps we need to talk in Lakatosian terms about the hard core? Marxism is not a church, so it cannot be a broad church either. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 26 2004 - 00:00:02 EST